“Great, we’re positive,” he said sarcastically. “It was great to win two sets off Novak, and losing four. Losing a match, it’s really exciting. But I don’t know what to tell you. The season’s not done yet. Let’s talk about this stuff in hopefully four matches.”
An era, by definition, is a period of time characterized by particular circumstances, events, or personages. Assigning specific dates to an era renders the definition subjective. For me, therefore, the period during which Djoko and Fed played/still play is characterized by exactly that: they played or are playing in the same period.
If you want to “excuse” Fed’s current losses to that fact that he is not of the same era as Djoker i.e. old, you have to also excuse Djoko’s early losses to Fed to the fact that he was not of Fed’s era i.e young.
Good example Ricky! No, what I am saying is Michael Russel and Ricardas Berankas are different generation players playing in the same era. Just as Djoko and Fed are different generation players playing in the same era.
‘Era’ is a time span with certain characteristics, and everybody, who plays now, plays in the same era. Doesn’t matter, how old they are. When Rafa and Andre met inthe final of Montreal 2005, they played in Fed’s era, even if Andre was 35 and Rafa was 19. But they were from different generations. JuanJose nailed it. If you compare two players with each other, their generation matters. ‘Era’ is only a word for pinpointing the time, like ‘fin de siecle’.
To the comment on age advantage we have to add one more observation, to make the comparison more meaningful. It used to be that Roger almost always beat Novak for many years in a row. As we often have written about… until Novak was a couple of months into his nearly-unbeatable mode in 2011, Roger and Novak were in the same draw at major tournaments 13 consecutive times… which we know means statistically that quite a few of those draws could not have been random. The preferential treatment Roger received with regard to playing Novak rather than Andy (or Rafa) means that Novak and him met even more often than they would have if all those draws had been random. Thus their H2H would have been more in favor of Novak if every one of those 13 consecutive draws had been random.
If you separate out how many times Roger won / lost in the finals versus Rafa and, separately, versus others, in those years you get the following running totals for the two periods.
Running totals for Masters finals, first period:
2002 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 0 / 0
2003 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 2 / 0
2004 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 0 Won Lost to others: 5 / 0
2005 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 1 Won Lost to others: 6 / 0
2006 Won/Lost to Nadal: 1 / 1 Won Lost to others: 8 / 0
2007 Won/Lost to Nadal: 2 / 2 Won Lost to others: 10 / 0
If you admit Rafa’s SF win at RG in 2005 their H2H becomes 2/3. (Rafa was on the verge of being number 2 and so almost met Roger in the F that year)
Running totals for Masters finals, second period:
2008 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 2 Won Lost to others: 1 / 0
2009 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 3 Won Lost to others: 3 / 1
2010 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 3 Won Lost to others: 4 / 1
2011 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 4 / 1
2012 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 5 / 1
2013 Won/Lost to Nadal: 0 / 4 Won Lost to others: 5 / 1
It would be interesting to separate out those wins against others into: within top 8, seeded outside of the top 8, and unseeded. Anyone?
And finally, had Rafa had a healthy knee in all the masters he missed or lost in due to his knee, starting with 2009, … the stats in the left column would be higher… e.g. 0/6 or 0/7 for meeting Roger at least one or more additional times in major finals (and I would venture to say who would have won), and for the same reason the column on the right would be different too, e.g. 3/3 or 2/4.
—“To trick consumers into purchasing the new, more expensive Federer tennis racket, Wilson has entered into an endorsement deal with Roger Federer, through which Wilson provides Federer with his preferred older-model racket – which has been painted to look like Wilson’s latest Federer tennis racket,” according to the complaint. “This occurs year after year. Accordingly, when people see Federer play – in person, on television, or in photographs – they see him using an old-model racket that is disguised to look like the latest Federer tennis racket.”—
So, Federer is involved in a cheating scandal! I’ll remember this!
I remember reading a while ago he played with an older racquet painted to resemble a newer model but hadn’t made the connection between that and his endorsement deal.
I’m amazed this case has not made a bigger stink.
Fed needs to stop acting the fool with his “dreams” of re-capturing #1/winning a Slam. He needs to do a Verdasco and re-prioritise. It make sense for him to go for the accolades he does not have, such as Davis Cup. If the Czechs can do it with a 2-man band, why can’t Stan and Fed?
@deucy, of course he will play Davis Cup because it will serve his goal of qualifying for the Olympics, not because he gives a damn about Switzerland. My point though is, Davis Cup is his only hope at glory now because he will have Stan’s help……….he cannot cut it all on his lonesome now…..
It’s the time of year when the top players start their preps for AO and most of the top players do not play in the early rounds. Fed, on the other hand, may want to play to avoid a mauling at Nole’s hands and that would be a good opportunity for him to notch up a DC match-win on his way to Rio…………..
“So it was very strange to say the least when he ended up getting routined himself by Robredo of all people. …………………..
There is no doubt that the upcoming meeting with Nadal was weighing heavily on his mind. Even the knowledge that he has to play Nadal is now enough to psyche him out completely. That is the extent of the damage Nadal have inflicted on the Federer psyche over the years. Another loss to Nadal at the only slam they haven’t played at yet was too much for Roger to bare.
It was a subconscious tank. Nothing more and nothing less. It was another disappointing and confidence sapping loss, but better than getting destroyed by Nadal in the last remaining slam. ”
ed251137, no offence meant to fellow Rafans. But seriously, I enjoy reading the anti-Rafa blogs out there, they are quite funny although nowadays they are tinged with a bit of pathos, truth be told.
I am not offended at all by the rubbish they print, just amused by how some people are so driven by hate they are willing to make fools of themselves publicly. But then again, they are anonymous behind those monikers………… the joys of internet freedom!
I read Sean Randall’s Roger-X blog (although I do not post there anymore) for the same reason. There is something about an online meltdown that I find totally fascinating……….
At least Ruan is honest and up-front about his hatred for Rafa and why. His blog is called Ruan’s Federer blog, no subterfuge there. Compare that to other Fderazzi like Sean Randall whose sites masquerade as objective tennis blogs when in fact they are a platform for the propagation of anti-Rafa hate-speech.
Ruan does not run Rafans off his site. He does not bully them. His tirades are directed at Rafa, not his fans. Sean Randall and his henchmen do the exact opposite on their site.
I do not agree with Ruan’s views, but I have immense respect for him as a blogger and a man. I have none for the Sean Randall’s of this world.
Fed has little choice but to play if asked to. The ruling is players must play at least four times IF CALLED UPON in the two years prior to the Olympics. If he plays and Switzerland loses he will not be called upon again until February 2015. Ditto 2016.
In effect all he needs to do is show up for the 1st round matches and Switzerland to lose, as happened this year, and he will still have met the criteria laid down by the ITF.